Travis McMichael says in his murder trial that he felt threatened by Ahmaud Arbery

It was illegal, criminal for them to try to detain him. They used threats of violence when he did not comply with their criminal demands. Plus their original story is that they wanted to stop him and question him themselves. They didn't come up with the "hold him until police arrive" story until later. Why didn't they call the police if that's really what they wanted to do, by the way? Regardless, their attempts were criminal. He died defending himself against violent criminal thugs.

 

They had an honest and reasonably held belief that they were justified and 99% of the population would do the same in their position. They did call the police and they did want to detain him until the cops arrived. Arbery was a violent criminal who attacked the law abiding men who tried to detain him until the police arrived, that they face the rest of their lives in jail as a result is a travesty of justice.

 

No, they didn't. Please familiarize yourself with Georgia's laws regarding citizens' arrest. They were blatantly violating it. I don't share your belief that 99% of the population are itching to be violent criminals.

They didn't call the police until just before the shooting. And their story is inconsistent.

Arbery defended himself against a violent criminal who was committing a violent crime against him. They face the rest of their lives in jail for their blatant crimes. Good. **** 'em.

 

Yes, we all know that now but they didn't then, they didn't realise and virtually everyone else would have done the same in their position. 99% of the population aren't "itching to be violent criminals", they think if you've seen a suspected burglar they have the right to detain them until the police arrive. They were on the phone to the police as they pursued him and you'd expect their story to be inconsistent, this is real life, not TV. Arbery was a violent criminal who attacked a man who was trying to detain him for the police, these poor men, railroaded into jail to appease BLIM rioters, it's a travesty of justice.

 

What's that saying again? Oh yes 'ignorance of the law' (then something about 'no excuse' or whatever). And lets just forget the (minor) fact that one of those involved in Aubery's arrest was a former law enforcement officer!

Instead, lets just concentrate on your claim that (assuming your bizarre interpretation of the law was correct) any citizen of the State of Georgia automatically has the legal right to seize and arrest under force of arms any stranger they see passing through their neighborhood simply on the basis that 'they looked' suspicious! And that's without the insane (and BTW unconstitutional) argument that anyone can be arrested, at any time, under any circumstances as long as they have a criminal record! And according to you that rule applies even if the person making the arrest is completely ignorant of that fact at the time!

 

Why did all 3 get life? What were the other 2 supposed to do when their friend got out with the gun? Execute him? Doesn't appear to be a fair sentence.

 

No it is not but it must be taken into consideration, they had a reasonable and honestly held belief. It's a fine line, had Arbery been fleeing from a burglary then and there they would have been justified but I'm sure the authorities would have found something else to prosecute them for. Arbery did not just "look suspicious" they had seen him on CCTV and was suspected of thefts in the neighbourhood and they were almost certainly right.

Absolutely!

 

The line is indeed very fine. Anyone making an arrest (citizens of otherwise) is walking a razer thin line and has to answer the question 'do I have reasonable grounds to believe that the person I am arresting has committed a crime'. The answer to that question is either yes or no.

Get it right, yes my grounds were reasonable, no problem. Get it wrong (they weren't) and congratulations, your now falling into a legal abyss! At the very least you can be charged with assault, potentially false imprisonment, theft and a host of other offenses, not to mention the whopping big civil suit you can expect to see heading your way shortly. And that's assuming the person you 'arrested' isn't even injured!

What you cant seem to grasp is what Aubert 'might' have been doing immediately prior to his 'arrest' doesn't matter. All that matters was what he was doing. Those three idiots didn't directly witness Aubery committing a crime, nor did they see him fleeing the aftermath of a crime in which he might have been involved and to which other citizens had drawn their attention. All they saw was a random person running through a neighborhood where crimes had been committed previously. Are you OK with being arrested, possibly even injured or killed on those grounds? Because that's where you seem to think the bar should be set.

They could 'see' a poodle crossing the road on CCTV. Does that make the dog guilty of a crime? For the rest... you obviously have secret knowledge of his activities unknown to Police, the prosecutors or their defense lawyers. Why didn't you come forward with your 'evidence' sooner? "They were almost certainly right?" OFGS. How the hell would you know that unless you were his accomplice ? Crystal ball perhaps?

 

1. Razor
2. They say a person who fitted the description of the suspect for the thefts.
3. I would have stopped and spoken to them and resolved the issue peacefully
4. Given Arbery's behavioiur and past criminal history?

 

!) Don't know what 'razor' is supposed to mean? Unless your referring to something found on Aubery's corpse after the shooting in which case it doesn't matter. Firstly because your using eagle eye hindsight - there's simply no way the three convicted felons would have known he was carrying it. (You going to stop every person you see because they 'might' be carrying an illegal weapon?) Secondly as long as he was legally entitled to carry it in the State of Georgia it wouldn't matter if he had an AK-47 on his person.

2) And that description was?

3) They didn't.

4) His 'behavior' was reacting to the unexpected approach of three persons attempting to detain him for reasons he would have no reason to suspect unless he'd actually done anything wrong in the preceding few moments (other than go jogging). And again ones 'past' criminal behavior doesn't matters a dam. Your past is your past. Legally, under the Constitution of the United States having been lawfully convicted of a crime and after serving your sentence, upon release and assuming you have complied with all relevant parole requirements you are a free citizen. As such you have exactly the same legal standing as any other citizen of the Republic. End of story.

It may not work out as easily in practice but that's the law. You could could have a criminal history, and it wouldn't matter a dam. Having served your sentence, upon release you have exactly the same rights as any other citizen of the United States. So did Aubery. Day that changes? Tear up the Constitution, cause it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

 

All 3 of them attempted to detain him?

 

All three were involved. I have no intention of breaking the entire incident down into who exactly did what and when. It suffices that all three committed sufficient acts pursuant to making a false arrest which ultimately resulted in the death of the victim.

Whether one of three deserved the sentence he got for his lessor role? Not really up to me to say. But the fact all three went down for it just shows that in Georgia at least you want to be very certain of your facts when deciding to make or assist in the making of an armed citizens arrest. The potential consequences of stuffing it up should now be quite clear.

 

One yelled that he was going to blow his f-ing head off if he did not stop running, while all 3 of them went on chasing him down. Since non of the others objected to that, and continued the chasing down... means they were all in on it. And they did kill him for not complying to their attempt to imprison him.

How about you go read up what happened.

 

irrelevant

not good enough

Sure. When you as a white person run around in the hood, being chased by 3 black people with their guns out, yelling death threats form their pick up trucks, you would indeed would want to have a peaceful talk.

railroaded nonsense.

 

Sounds like they got life for the egregious act of riding in a car with a friend? I only saw the video once, but I thought by the time the other 2 got out of the vehicle, Arbery was dead.

 

1. I know what a razor is and unlike you can actually spell the word?
2. Arbery to a T!
3. Of course they did, just look at the court evidence
4. No, if you've been suspected of committing a crime you have not been punished for it is right to you to be detained for the police.

 

I have, I must have missed one of them yelling that, can you point out to me exactly who said that and when? ONE of them killed him because Arbery attacked him and tried to turn his gun against him.

 

No, it wasn't. Even Travis admitted on the stand that the supposed "string of home burglaries" was based entirely on rumors that he heard from FB and from his mom. There was no string of home burglaries. There was 1 recent home burglary. By a white couple.

 

Who should they detain then? Someone who DOESN'T fit the description? What death threats? Yes these poor guys getting railroaded is nonsense or more specifically obscene. By contrast no one doubts Arbery's guilt

 

Arbery defended himself against illegal force after Travis illegally pointed his gun at him. There is no evidence he "tried to turn his gun against him." Travis changed his story about whether Arbery had even grabbed his gun, and physical evidence showed he was likely shot before making any kind of physical contact.

 

Arbery wasn't guilty of any crime. There is no evidence that he was. Anyone who has actually stayed awake through this trial knows that your "no one doubts" claim is complete, fabricated bull ****.

Who should they detain? ****ING NO ONE UNLESS THEY ACTUALLY HAVE CAUSE, WHICH THEY DIDN'T. How is this a complex concept? I'm serious.

 

It was illegal for them to detain him. They were the ones committing a crime. You need more than just FB rumors to detain a "suspected burglar," and you have to actually have reasonable cause to suspect them of burglary . . . which they didn't have. They didn't call the police until seconds of the shooting. And even the police would have had no authority to detain him. There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, much less a felony, which the law would have required for them to pursue him.

 

"Razor'? err... I just quoted the spelling from your original post since I had no context. For the rest? Well, the judge and jury ALL got to look at the allegations and evidence in detail, apparently they saw no problem with it. You also don't get 'punished' for being suspected of a crime. You may have heard of this little thing called 'due process' and having to be convicted of a crime before being sentenced for it.

 

They were all 3 busy with the same act of falsely imprison Arbery. They were all armed as far as I know. And when one yelled he's going to blow Arbery's f-ing head off, the other's helped him out with it instead of bailing on that idea. That is what everybody else noticed. And there were 2 vehicles by the way.

 

Uh no. The case is over. You can dig that info up yourself.

The redneck confessed that Arbery posed no threat when he pointed his gun at him. That is assault with a deadly weapon, giving Arbery the right to defend himself. And that is besides that they were all busy with a false imprisonment, giving Arbery the right to defend himself against that too.